From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6286 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Samuel Holland Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: libgcc errors Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:38:31 +0000 Message-ID: <263E3217-740D-44F2-BC2A-BDCA4AFB38B8@sholland.net> References: <20141007195156.GV21835@port70.net> <5434704E.8080504@sholland.net> <54367BF6.80203@bradfordembedded.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412883532 31078 80.91.229.3 (9 Oct 2014 19:38:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 19:38:52 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6299-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Oct 09 21:38:48 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XcJXy-0000iK-KX for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 21:38:46 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 15852 invoked by uid 550); 9 Oct 2014 19:38:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 15841 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2014 19:38:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sholland.net; s=key1; t=1412883475; bh=fh8gkfEpgD7ysl06pbGcA0BeyjBUo0LOEEbvy6VR108=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To; b=gbYP8wqHMpLEhsa5prmyblu0xg6uCojXy1CkN91c0qqM4HHRx/MvhbqlLKumyr1dh PixJ9wD0HGhfw39l7tbdN4VlZWqks26wek934S21K4WYHuQzJy+IEPcNqofjaw+870 5Kb9NmW9KbKbT9YTJPPSpyYpbRnCbowBUss1hvoo= In-Reply-To: <54367BF6.80203@bradfordembedded.com> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6286 Archived-At: On October 9, 2014 7:13:42 AM CDT, Andrew Bradford wrote: >Could you please provide more info on why you think the embedded Cross >LFS way [1] is more complicated than is needed? How could it be made >more simple? I'm happy to take suggestions for improvement. > >[1]:http://cross-lfs.org/view/clfs-embedded/arm/ > >For the most part the toolchain building portion of embedded CLFS >follows Gregor's musl-cross. Because he doesn't need a cross compiler, only library isolation. Even the LFS method is more work than absolutely necessary. You could compile musl with your host GCC, then compile binutils and GCC with musl-gcc, and be done with it. I recommend the LFS way because 1) it works with C++ and 2) some people claim musl-gcc makes unreliable GCC builds. Cross LFS makes sense when you're planning to use musl on another machine/architecture, but not (in my opinion) for making a native toolchain. I have no problems with CLFS; I just think it's the wrong tool for the job. >Thanks, >Andrew -- Regards, Samuel Holland